Posted on 06/25/2008 12:42:43 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
Pardon me, but wouldn’t the “Killer’s victim” be dead?
will Scalia be writing the magority for Heller now that he has written this opinion?
Correct. But the killer could not confront the victim since he or she is dead.
Unfortunate the woman died at his hands, but more unfortunate is the fact that California didn't execute the puke in the first place. Then he wouldn't be wasting the valuable time of the taxpaying public.
Unfortunate the woman died at his hands, but more unfortunate is the fact that California didn't execute the puke in the first place. Then he wouldn't be wasting the valuable time of the taxpaying public.
Unfortunate the woman died at his hands, but more unfortunate is the fact that California didn't execute the puke in the first place. Then he wouldn't be wasting the valuable time of the taxpaying public.
majority
He already “confronted” her.
<<< The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim’s prior statements cannot be used against her killer because it would violate a defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him. >>>
GREAT WORK MORONS. YOU JUST TOLD EVERY SCUMBAG THAT WAS THINKING OF KILLING THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE ITS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR THEM.......
That's what I was thinking. I understand the reasoning, but I don't believe that was the original intent.
Everyone on this thread is overthinking this....you know the truth...its BS, the SC ruling has protected terrorists, child rapists, now killers. We’re going down...
This will grant a new trial to the wife killer in Wisconsin whose wife had written a note predicting her murder. The Wisconsin Supremes permitted the testimony on appeal. Goodby appeal.
Doesn’t this mean the defendant will be retried , but this time without the hearsay from the officer ?
It looks like this decision was written by the conservative good guys.
I’m not sure what they were thinking. I’ve always thought that in a case like this the jury should hear the evidence and then be warned by the judge that it is hearsay.
But I can understand the decision, I guess. A LEO presented the hearsay evidence, and it could be a dangerous precedent if they are allowed to do that.
Does this mean that a recorded 911 call from a victim, who is now dead, screaming that the attacker is so-and-so is now inadmissible in court?...............
This was not a recorded phone call but the evidence of a police officer that spoke with the victim weeks before the murder.
I don't think a recorded phone call would be considered hearsay evidence.
I don't think the written note will be considered hearsay evidence, so I don't think this decision will affect that case.
That’s a good question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.